The Canadian Press and the Canwest News Service both report that the group, from Rev. Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, were turned back when they attempted to enter Canada at a border crossing south of Winnipeg on Thursday.

The Canadian government has not commented on the reports, but Pat Martin, a New Democratic Party member of Parliament from Winnipeg, says he asked Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day to send an alert to the border patrol to look out “for people with signs and pamphlets that fit the hateful messages that the church promotes and to keep them out of the country.”

Canadian hate laws give the government the power to deny entry to people likely to violate the law. The so-called church was listed as a hate group under the law following previous protests.

....

Shirley Phelps-Roper, Phelps’ daughter and a frequent spokesperson for the “church” confirmed to both Canwest and CP that a small group of protesters was stopped at the Canada-U. S. border Thursday afternoon.

They won’t let us in, but we have a group that will cross in another spot,” she told the Canwest Winnipeg Free Press. “They’ll have to strip search everyone who crosses that border or they won’t know who we are. They’ll have to see the WBC [Westboro Baptist Church] tattoo on our butts.”

tiponeill:

Anti-gay Phelps group barred from entering Canada

The Canadian Press and the Canwest News Service both report that the group, from Rev. Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, were turned back when they attempted to enter Canada at a border crossing south of Winnipeg on Thursday.

The Canadian government has not commented on the reports, but Pat Martin, a New Democratic Party member of Parliament from Winnipeg, says he asked Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day to send an alert to the border patrol to look out “for people with signs and pamphlets that fit the hateful messages that the church promotes and to keep them out of the country.”

Canadian hate laws give the government the power to deny entry to people likely to violate the law. The so-called church was listed as a hate group under the law following previous protests.

....

Shirley Phelps-Roper, Phelps’ daughter and a frequent spokesperson for the “church” confirmed to both Canwest and CP that a small group of protesters was stopped at the Canada-U. S. border Thursday afternoon.

They won’t let us in, but we have a group that will cross in another spot,” she told the Canwest Winnipeg Free Press. “They’ll have to strip search everyone who crosses that border or they won’t know who we are. They’ll have to see the WBC [Westboro Baptist Church] tattoo on our butts.”

So much for freedom of speech!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nice of them to announce that they intend to violate the border elsewhere. In that case, they should be arrested as terrorists and imprisoned awaiting trial.

Haters, indeed. Treat them as such.

...and harassment of innocent people, including bereaved families, as long as its by his fellow "Christians."

THis is one reason no one likes you, Nano. You have no decency, no sense of judgement.

I don't think that the Canadian government was neccesarily wrong in keeping the WBC members out. I just feel that freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental and important of all freedoms. Who gets to decide what you can say and what you can't? Tip? Horus? Nano? I don't think any of you would like the other telling them what they can and cannot say and I sure as hell don't want any of you telling me what I can and can't say. So let's just agree that we can all say whatever we want.

Phelps and his crew are just another two-bit, po-dunk, half-assed backwoods bible church. They just get a lot of attention for their awful behavior and literature. But, that isn't a crime. What you say is not illegal, it's what you do that's illegal.

...but even in this country, it's not UNLIMITED. The classic example of shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater shows us that speech can be damaging or dangerous. Hate speech is, moreover, illegal in Canada, if not here.

Myself, I view their activities more as harrassment, and I think they should be kept out because past 'demonstrations' show that they're willing to disrupt personal or public services such as funerals for no good reason.

If someone wants to engage in a political demonstration at a political convention, fine. But a social and religious demonstration about the behavior of a segment of the population at a family's graveside service? No way. That's not free speech, that's harassment.

His argument has typically been applied when someone says something that is intended to cause a panic and possibly affect public safety. I know that it has been applied to cases where someone has spoken in such a way as to incite violence and crime. The Hutu power radio in Rawanda prior to the genocide is a great example. But, I don't think that the WBC is going around saying "KILL ALL THE FAGS". In that regard at least, the WBC has been very good about pushing the absolute limit of the law. But, I don't believe that they have done anything to directly incite or cause violence. If anything, it seems to me that there whole schtick is more about getting themselves as much publicity as possible. Something Tip is always willing to help them out with.

Sorry, But I just think that freedom is messy. I don't believe that "There ought to be limits to freedom". I think that freedom is stinky, and awful and dirty and painful. But it's also a lot better than the alternative.

Ask yourself this: Who would you trust to decide what you can and cannot say?

I don't think that the Canadian government was neccesarily wrong in keeping the WBC members out. I just feel that freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental and important of all freedoms.

******************************­******************************­*******

I may be wrong on this, but I think USA is the only country that gives 'freedom of speech' quite that sacrosanct a position. Canada and most West European nations do put limits on 'hate speech' that demonize specific groups (for e.g., Wester Europe won't allow a public speech involving Holocaust denial) and their citizens don't seem to mind much. Most think its a total joke that USA actually has to STILL put up with groups like KKK because they are protected by 'freedom of speech'.

So much for freedom of speech!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

******************************­******************************­**********

So, Nano, if an US immigration official comes across a tourist trying to enter USA with a bagful of explicit anti-Christian propaganda, you think they should just go ahead and let them in, no questions asked?

By making such speech illegal, it immediately give it an appealing lustre to some people. The KKK has largely been marginalized in this country, not by laws, but by their own words and actions that are freely broadcast to a disapproving world. If they hid in a dank basement and wispered, a lot more folks would likely wonder what they were talking about.

Freedom is messy and I would ask you the same question I asked Horus: Who would you trust to decide what you can and can not say?

…the WBC tattoo on Shirley Phelps-Roper’s bare butt has been known to turn straight men gay.

Freedom is messy and I would ask you the same question I asked Horus: Who would you trust to decide what you can and can not say?

******************************­******************************­***********

Its a difficult question, and my knee-jerk answer is "no-one" (which agrees wiith your point).

But the more complex answer is whether you can 'trust' the society you are n. For e.g., in case of KKK, you are now able to 'trust' the greater society enough to marginalize them. Similiarly, I think most Canadian, West European and other countries trust their society enough, and by extension trust their govt as an extension of that society, to define 'hate speech' in a way that's acceptable to most of them and does not seem like an onerous burden.

Also, much like there are constant debates in THIS country about whether or not something should be protected under 'freedom of speech', there are similair debates in those nations about whether or not something should officially be categorized as 'hate speech', so its all ultimately a fluid and dynamic process........

I tend to wonder what possess straight men to spend hours and hours thinking about gay men and gay sex.

Hmmmm.

I like to talk about it. I just believe that something would have to be pretty extreme to make me want to ban it.

Earlier in the thread I mentioned Hutu powe radio in Rawanda. I think that is a good example of something I would want to ban. When you have public broadcasting saying "Go out and kill X group" and then relaying location of hiding members of X group and saying where to rally and gather weapons to kill X group then I completely agree that it should be prosecuted. But when you have someone spewing racist, homophobic or anti x speech but not directly inciting violence then I think it should be protected. I always feel that, in questions of freedom, you should always err on the side of freedom.

Frankly, I don't think hate-speech is a crime. But, you are in good company. I have already seen fundamentalist Christians and wack fringe right wingers co-opting the term for anyone who speaks against them. Do you see the danger.

You "don't thin there ought to be limits to freedom?" So Dahmer's urge to kill, mutilate and cannibalize was just part of his right to free expression? Or do we limit that kind of "freedom?" De Sade thought that total sexual freedom was appropriate, including everyone's sexual right to everyone else. Going to submit yourself to the next smelly, gay drunk or overweight, middle-aged sow who wants to jump your bones, eh?

Perhaps you need to read my posts more closely. I said that free speech would NOT be what I'd go after, but rather their harassment of private individuals. Do the people at the funeral have no rights, according to you? Or do the "free speech" rights of their (potential) tormentors triumph over all?